Skip to main content
Tweeted twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/973374095487270912
added tag
Link
Guran
  • 2.9k
  • 2
  • 15
  • 23
Source Link
Guran
  • 2.9k
  • 2
  • 15
  • 23

Can "Anti-establishment" be considered a coherent political movement?

There seems to be a long running trend in established democracies that traditional parties and candidates are losing ground to those who primarily profile themselves as "anti-establishment".

Naturally, there is a lot that separates for example the Italian five-star movement from Donald Trump and the UK Independence party. (Just to name three examples of what I'd call typical anti-establishmentism) but is there so much common ground that we can talk about a (somewhat) coherent movement?

For the sake of this question, we are talking about parties and candidates who:

  • Clearly spins themselves as outsiders, separate from "politicians".
  • Can be either left or right leaning. (I'd include Bernie Sanders for example)
  • Are both unwilling to enter a coalition (that would neccessitate compromise) and are not really considered as a coalition partner by other parties (who don't see them as trustworthy).
  • Fervently rejects not only the political elite but also established media, academic scholars and businessmen who question them. (Primarily counter argument being "They are establishement, therefore they oppose me")

A good answer would find a common source, common stated values/policies and preferably somthing akin to the philosophical groundwork of "traditional" ideologies. ie, who are the Marx/Burke/Mills of the anti-establishmentists.